Certificated to experimental

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

Twmaster

I watched a video published by EAA where they featured a man who built a plane for $6,200. He says it's a bunch of parts from other airplanes. It's also obvious he fabricated a bunch of things to keep it cheap. In the cabin there's the "experimental" placard. What I don't understand is how this is possible. The video did not go into a lot of details or show any images of the construction. At what point does a certified craft become eligible for "experimental"? Thanks. Aerowerx Well-Known Member I don't know a direct answer to your question, but I know the late great Bob Hoover had his factory built stock Rockwell Aero commander licensed as experimental. Because it wasn't rated for the aerobatics he was doing. I saw him fly it at the 50th anniversary of KCMH. Impressive! So it can be done. I just don't know how (although he had all the lawyers at Rockwell to help). kent Ashton Well-Known Member Wanttaja Well-Known Member I don't know a direct answer to your question, but I know the late great Bob Hoover had his factory built stock Rockwell Aero commander licensed as experimental. Because it wasn't rated for the aerobatics he was doing. I saw him fly it at the 50th anniversary of KCMH. Impressive! So it can be done. I just don't know how (although he had all the lawyers at Rockwell to help). Aero Commander N5007H. Listed as deregistered as of January 1990. No entry for airworthiness type, but I could certainly see it being put into Experimental Exhibition. Oddly enough only the older photos show an N-Number...the later ones seem to have left it off. None is showing in the Udvar-Hazy.... Ron Wanttaja Turd Ferguson Well-Known Member I watched a video published by EAA where they featured a man who built a plane for$6,200. He says it's a bunch of parts from other airplanes. It's also obvious he fabricated a bunch of things to keep it cheap. In the cabin there's the "experimental" placard.

What I don't understand is how this is possible. The video did not go into a lot of details or show any images of the construction. At what point does a certified craft become eligible for "experimental"?
I think the video you are referring to is a budget homebuilt by Tim Buttles.

While he did use salvaged parts, the airplane easily meets the criteria for experimental amateur built. He might be oversimplifying by saying it's a bunch of parts from other airplanes.

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Paul Poberezny built "Little Audrey" with shorten Luscombe wings and a cut down T-Craft steel tube fuselage. Could it be done today?

We have come a long ways baby.

don january

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Doesn't the Breezy fall into that zone ? Cub wings and an engine ? I can only imagine all the GA parts used in the HBA world would blow our minds.

Mohawk750

Well-Known Member
Now a days you can accomplish what qualifies as 51% build without actually fabricating much of anything. It's mostly an assembly process, with a full manual and online support. Witness today's kits which require no welding, wings pre-assembled, critical parts fully finished, etc. Truth is that the assembly, rigging, systems installation, instruments and engine installation , covering etc. will meet 51%. US FAA rules and Canadian TCCA rules are similar in this regard, meaning there is a process to have your project evaluated for qualification as an "experimental" (USA) or "amateur built" (Canada).

Many years ago I rebuilt a '46 Taylorcraft in mostly stock form but because it was built up from a basket case of parts I had it evaluated for eligibility as an amateur built. In Canada the regulator has delegated the responsibility for amateur built aircraft inspection to the Recreational Aircraft Association (RAA). So I started a file with the RAA for my project and had it evaluated for eligibility at the same time as my pre-cover inspection. I had already printed out the check list they were going to use and had self assessed the project at 70-75% owner built. The inspector agreed and I proceeded that way as it would leave me much more latitude for improvements or engine upgrades in the future.

TFF

Well-Known Member
The normal bolts and rivets used are certified airplane parts, so it depends. Full wings and fuselages are frowned upon now days, but not saying it’s not possible. Brackets, bits and pieces are not generally issues because you are using them differently. The score sheet the FAA has you fill out will give a good idea where you might stand. There are real cheaters out there, but they are a handful against thousands of by the book.

Wheels, brakes, props, engine mounts, panel stuff, brackets, sticks and pedals; the glorified hardware is usually clear of question. I know of a Stits Playboy that the seat is a waste gunner jump seat from a B-17. Scrounging is a big part of homebuilts.

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Got it. So you can take $12,000 cash payment to do dangerous stunts near a crowd but not$50 to check out a friend.
The performer has to incrementally demonstrate that his flying doesn't equate to dangerous stunts and the FAA requires the show routine be distanced far enough from crowd so even in recent bizarre airshow accidents, like the wingwalker at KDAY (Dayton, OH), the crowd was not subject to undue hazard.

Charlie is correct, for hire is carrying persons or property and charging specifically for that purpose.

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
When I got my work airplane in the Restricted Category the FAA warned me about dropping off anyone in my airplane at another airport from the one we took off from. Said if we would get a complaint about 135 operation it would be in a gray area and they would investigate it. Made sure it never happen and no complaints .